SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Augustus Gloop who wrote (14286)4/12/2004 5:38:46 PM
From: OrcastraiterRead Replies (1) of 81568
 
Kerry also needed no such coalition in 1998 to enforce the UN resolution so why was it so important now?

There's clearly a difference between a limited action to take out installations that were clearly a violation of the UN resolution, and an all out invasion with regime change at it's heart.

Two different actions, scopes and reasons. You can't compare them directly.

Maybe not yet although I think we may have made certain adjustments that could prove that wrong. It's just too soon to say if we're safer or not as safe.

We're certainly not safer as a result of actions in Iraq. Yes we might be safer from certain modes of attack because of adjustments. I agree that it would be more difficult to do an action with an airliner from a US airport. But there are a multitude of things that the terrorist can do that do not include airliners. Hey they have already made us spend billions of dollars on airport security, and yet they can still strike the New York subway just as they did in Madrid.

It's going to be at a time and place of their choosing...we can not know where or how. My premise is that attacking Iraq made us no safer from Al Qaeda. Show me how attacking Iraq has made us safer from Al Qaeda?

Orca
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext